Inspired by Fr Mildew. An quizze.
1. Who wrote the book of Romans?
2. Who wrote the Apocalypse? (aka Revelation – to distinguish it from the rest of the Bible?)
okay, 2a – why do Protestants call the Apocalypse Revelation?
Answers on a comment. No prizes.
November 18, 2007 at 7:28 pm
These must be trick questions?
1. God and St Paul
2. God and St John (son of Zebedee)
2a. Revelation is Latin for Apocalypse.
November 18, 2007 at 11:14 pm
The Book of Romans? When did we stop calling it an Epistle? We wouldn’t want people confusing it with my ‘blog.
Anyway, as part of Sacred Scripture, it has God as its author, being inspired by the Holy Spirit. It’s a letter from Paul to the Church in Rome, so we can also say that Paul is, in another sense, it;s author. However, I think that we should also give some credit to St Paul’s amanuensis Tertius who writes I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. (Rom 16:22)
As for the Apocalypse, Aelianus is right in pointing out that Revelation means the same as the Greek Apocalypsis, and since the opening line of the book begins The revelation of Jesus Christ… it’s a pretty reasonable name to give the book.
As for the author, I’m not going to get into the whole discussion about what modern scholars might say about John and the Johannine School.
The writing credit should be shared with God, and account should be taken that much of it is dictated by Christ during John’s vision.
November 18, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I knew the first two but not 2a.
November 18, 2007 at 11:58 pm
“knew”? No-one’s got them yet?
November 19, 2007 at 12:11 am
Revelation was universally accepted as the work of John the son of Zebedee or attacked as a heretical forgery until Eusebius of Caesria invented the the figure of John the Presbyter on a manifestly false reading of Papias of Hierapolis.
November 19, 2007 at 12:25 am
Keep trying folks!
Zadok got Romans right (Tertius).
Revelation-being-Latin-for-Apocalypse doesn’t explain why Protestants use it. You’d think Catholics would use Revelation and Prods Apocalypse just not to use Latin.
November 19, 2007 at 12:48 am
“Apocalypsis Jesu Christi, quam dedit illi Deus palam facere servis suis, quæ oportet fieri cito : et significavit, mittens per angelum suum servo suo Joanni”
The question is: Why did Jerome leave it in the Greek?
November 19, 2007 at 12:59 am
If you meant ‘who put ink to papyrus’, that was a thoroughly unfairly ambiguous use of the term ‘wrote’!
No idea re Revelation, though. Though since the angel says to John, ‘Write what you see in a book,’ I’d have thought it was him. John, I mean.
Is there an actual reason for Protestants (plus, ed, the RSV) using ‘Revelation’ that you’re angling for? Or was that a genuine question?
November 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Oh. Maybe this was tougher than I thought.
November 19, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Okay, then question 2c – why did St Jerome leave it in the Greek?
By the way, I don’t know the answers to qq2b,c, they are “real” questions. Expressing and communicating an interior psychological state, as the lecturer in methodology explains to us, very boringly, from his notes. (you remember that story about the Edinburgh medical school lecturer in anatomy? …)
November 19, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Wot, ‘no lecture next week for the Queen’s coronation’?